civil plain error in Ohio

2020Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St. 3d 116, 121 , 1997-Ohio-401 (1997).

2006As a general rule, the civil plain error doctrine "may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself." Id. {¶ 22} In this case, none of the alleged errors in the closing argument of appellee's counsel amounted to plain error under the circumstances of this case.

2024No. 23AP-276, 2024-Ohio-937, ¶ 10 .

2024No. 23AP- 276, 2024-Ohio-937, ¶ 10 .

2018The civil plain error doctrine is a “very high standard[.]” Perez v. Falls Fin., 87 Ohio St.3d 371 , 375 (2000). “[T]he plain error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.” Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , (1997) syllabus.

2018The civil plain error doctrine is a "very high standard[.]" Perez v. Falls Fin. , 87 Ohio St.3d 371 , 375, 721 N.E.2d 47 (2000). "[T]he plain error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself." Goldfuss v. Davidson , 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997) syllabus.

2008To that end, because sexual offender classification hearings are civil in nature, State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404 , our review of unobjected error is conducted under a civil plain error standard, and reversal will only be resorted to in those rare cases involving exceptional circumstances where error seriously affects "`the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.'" Gowdy , at 398 , quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , syllabus. {¶ 10} In this case, appellan

2004However, because sexual offender classification hearings are civil in nature, State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404 , our review of unobjected error is conducted under a civil plain error standard and reversal will only be resorted to in those rare cases involving exceptional circumstances where error seriously affects "`the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.'" Gowdy , at 398, quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , syllabus. {¶ 12} This court has taken note of

2023Hamilton No. C-180095, 2019-Ohio-1515, ¶ 14 , citing McNeil v. 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Kingsley, 178 Ohio App.3d 674 , 2008-Ohio-5536 , 899 N.E.2d 1054, ¶ 24 (3d Dist.).

2020Butler No. CA2015-08- 153, 2016-Ohio-998, ¶ 13 . {¶ 29} Civ.R 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) provides: [e]xcept for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b). {¶ 30} The Ohio Supreme Court has articulated the civil plain error standard as follows: reviewing courts must proceed with the utmost caution, limiting the doc

2018Warren No. CA2017-12-169, 2018-Ohio-3224, ¶ 12 , this court's review is "extremely deferential" to the trial court. {¶ 57} As noted therein, pursuant to Civ.R 53(D)(3)(b)(iv): [e]xcept for a claim of plain error, a party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party has objected to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b). {¶ 58} The Ohio Supreme Court has articulated that reviewing courts must

2016While this court has not specifically addressed which standard applies, we have recognized that “the characterization of delinquency proceedings as civil is one of limited applicability” 14 January Term, 2016 because “ ‘there are criminal aspects to juvenile court proceedings.’ ” In re Cross, 96 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2002-Ohio-4183 , 774 N.E.2d 258 , ¶ 21, quoting In re Anderson, 92 Ohio St.3d 63, 66 , 748 N.E.2d 67 (2001).

2016While this court has not specifically addressed which standard applies, we have recognized that “the characterization of delinquency proceedings as civil is one of limited applicability” because “ ‘there are criminal aspects to juvenile court proceedings.’ ” In re Cross, 96 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2002-Ohio-4183 , 774 N.E.2d 258 , ¶ 21, quoting In re Anderson, 92 Ohio St.3d 63, 66 , 748 N.E.2d 67 (2001).

2016See, e.g., In re Good, 118 Ohio App.3d 371, 378 , 692 N.E.2d 1072 (12th Dist.1997) (applying the criminal plain- error standard); In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d 484, 492-493 , 731 N.E.2d 694 (1st Dist.1998) (applying the civil plain-error standard).

2016See, e.g., In re Good, 118 Ohio App.3d 371, 378 , 692 N.E.2d 1072 (12th Dist.1997) (applying the criminal plain- error standard); In re Etter, 134 Ohio App.3d 484, 492-493 , 731 N.E.2d 694 (1st Dist.1998) (applying the civil plain-error standard).

2016While this court has not specifically addressed which standard applies, we have recognized that “the characterization of delinquency proceedings as civil is one of limited applicability” 14 January Term, 2016 because “ ‘there are criminal aspects to juvenile court proceedings.’ ” In re Cross, 96 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2002-Ohio-4183 , 774 N.E.2d 258 , ¶ 21, quoting In re Anderson, 92 Ohio St.3d 63, 66 , 748 N.E.2d 67 (2001).

2016While this court has not specifically addressed which standard applies, we have recognized that “the characterization of delinquency proceedings as civil is one of limited applicability” 14 January Term, 2016 because “ ‘there are criminal aspects to juvenile court proceedings.’ ” In re Cross, 96 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2002-Ohio-4183 , 774 N.E.2d 258 , ¶ 21, quoting In re Anderson, 92 Ohio St.3d 63, 66 , 748 N.E.2d 67 (2001).

2016While this court has not specifically addressed which standard applies, we have recognized that “the characterization of delinquency proceedings as civil is one of limited applicability” 14 January Term, 2016 because “ ‘there are criminal aspects to juvenile court proceedings.’ ” In re Cross, 96 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2002-Ohio-4183 , 774 N.E.2d 258 , ¶ 21, quoting In re Anderson, 92 Ohio St.3d 63, 66 , 748 N.E.2d 67 (2001).

2016While this court has not specifically addressed which standard applies, we have recognized that “the characterization of delinquency proceedings as civil is one of limited applicability” because “ ‘there are criminal aspects to juvenile court proceedings.’ ” In re Cross, 96 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2002-Ohio-4183 , 774 N.E.2d 258 , ¶ 21, quoting In re Anderson, 92 Ohio St.3d 63, 66 , 748 N.E.2d 67 (2001).

2011As such, Lisa concedes that the “plain error [rule] applies[.]” Brief of Appellant 2; see, also, Sprouse v. Miller, Lawrence App. No. 07CA32, 2008-Ohio- 4384, at ¶12; A.S. v. D.G., Clinton App. No. 2006-05-017, 2007-Ohio-1556, at ¶12 . {¶21} The civil-plain-error rule, however, “should never be applied to reverse a civil judgment simply because a reviewing court disagrees with the result obtained in the trial court, or to allow litigation of issues which could easily have been raised and determined in the initial trial.” Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 122 , 1997- Ohio-401.

2011The civil plain error standard is stringent and rarely utilized, reserved for the "extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself." Gable v. Gates Mills, 103 Ohio St.3d 449 , 2004- Ohio-5719, at 816 N.E.2d 1049 , at ¶43, quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 , at syllabus. - 14 - {¶66} The trial court did not err, let

2003In the present case, we conclude that the trial court's erroneous application of R.C. § 3107.07 (A) seriously affected the basic fairness of the proceeding below. {¶ 13} In finding the civil plain error doctrine to be applicable, we first note that the termination of parental rights is "`the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case.'" In re Hayes (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 46 , 48 , quoting In re Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 1 , 16 .

2003In the present case, we conclude that the trial court's erroneous application of R.C. § 3107.07 (A) seriously affected the basic fairness of the proceeding below. {¶ 13} In finding the civil plain error doctrine to be applicable, we first note that the termination of parental rights is "`the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case.'" In re Hayes (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 46 , 48 , quoting In re Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 1 , 16 .

2000Civ.R. 49(B) states that “[w]hen one or more of the answers is inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment may be entered pursuant to Rule 58 in accordance with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict, or the court may return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or may order a new trial.” In Shaffer v. Maier (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 416, 421 , 627 N.E.2d 986, 990 , a case with a conflicting general verdict and interrogatory response, this court stated that “the clear, best choice was to send the jury back for further deliberations.” {¶ 19} The trial judge cer

2000Civ.R. 49(B) states that “[w]hen one or more of the answers is inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment may be entered pursuant to Rule 58 in accordance with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict, or the court may return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or may order a new trial.” In Shaffer v. Maier (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 416, 421 , 627 N.E.2d 986, 990 , a case with a conflicting general verdict and interrogatory response, this court stated that “the clear, best choice was to send the jury back for further deliberations.” {¶ 19} The trial judge cer

2000Mfg., Inc. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 52 , 53 , 723 N.E.2d 571 . 5 Some courts have applied a civil plain-error standard even where no objections have been filed pursuant to Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b).

2000Mfg., Inc. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 52 , 53 , 723 N.E.2d 571 . 5 Some courts have applied a civil plain-error standard even where no objections have been filed pursuant to Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(b).